Hello Thierry,

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 06:10:45PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> Like I said, that's not what I was saying. I was merely saying that if
> there aren't any use-cases that current users rely on that would be
> broken by using this simpler implementation, then I'm okay with it, even
> if it's less flexible than a more complicated implementation. It should
> be possible to determine what the current users are by inspecting device
> trees present in the kernel. Anything outside the kernel isn't something
> we need to consider, as usual.

If "users in mainline" is the criteria that's a word.

So you agree we remove the following drivers?:

 - pwm-hibvt.c
   Last driver specific change in Feb 2019, no mainline user
 - pwm-sprd.c
   Last driver specific change in Aug 2019, no mainline user

Most PWMs are added to cpu.dtsi files with status = "disabled", I wonder
if it makes sense to check the machine.dts files if some of the PMWs are
completely unused. Do you consider status = "okay" a use that we have to
retain even if the node has no phandle?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |